Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31684690›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Early enteral nutrition (within 48 hours) versus delayed enteral nutrition (after 48 hours) with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults.

Paulina Fuentes Padilla, Gabriel Martínez, Robin Wm Vernooij, Gerard Urrútia, Marta Roqué I Figuls, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically-ill adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Enhanced Patient Comfort and Satisfaction with Early Oral Feeding after Thoracoscopic Lung Cancer Resection.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Core outcome sets and trials of nutrition and metabolism interventions.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Paulina Fuentes PadillaIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 Planta 0, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 08025.
Gabriel MartínezIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 Planta 0, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 08025.
Robin Wm VernooijUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3584 CX.
Gerard UrrútiaCIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavilion 18 (D-53), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 08025.
Marta Roqué I FigulsCIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavilion 18 (D-53), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 08025.
Xavier Bonfill CospCIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavilion 18 (D-53), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 08025.
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESIberoamerican Cochrane Centre · ESUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly enteral nutrition support (within 48 hours of admission or injury) is frequently recommended for the management of patients in intensive care units (ICU). Early enteral nutrition is recommended in many clinical practice guidelines, although there appears to be a lack of evidence for its use and benefit.

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of early enteral nutrition (initiated within 48 hours of initial injury or ICU admission) versus delayed enteral nutrition (initiated later than 48 hours after initial injury or ICU admission), with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in critically ill adults. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April 2019), Embase Ovid SP (1974 to April 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (1982 to April 2019), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to April 2019). We also searched Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry), and scientific conference reports, including the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. We applied no restrictions by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed enteral nutrition, with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in adults who were in the ICU for longer than 72 hours. This included individuals admitted for medical, surgical, and trauma diagnoses, and who required any type of enteral nutrition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN

resultsWe included seven RCTs with a total of 345 participants. Outcome data were limited, and we judged many trials to have an unclear risk of bias in several domains. Early versus delayed enteral nutrition Six trials (318 participants) assessed early versus delayed enteral nutrition in general, medical, and trauma ICUs in the USA, Australia, Greece, India, and Russia. Primary outcomes Five studies (259 participants) measured mortality. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.38; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). Four studies (221 participants) reported mortality without describing the timeframe; we did not pool these results. None of the studies reported a clear difference in mortality between groups. Three studies (156 participants) reported infectious complications. We were unable to pool the results due to unreported data and substantial clinical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. One trial measured feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications; it is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects this outcome (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.01; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes One trial assessed hospital length of stay and reported a longer stay in the early enteral group (median 15 days (interquartile range (IQR) 9.5 to 20) versus 12 days (IQR 7.5 to15); P = 0.05; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies (125 participants) reported the duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not pool the results due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-quality evidence). Early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition We identified one trial in a burn ICU in the USA (27 participants). Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.18; very low-quality evidence), or infectious complications (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.94; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications. Secondary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 9.00, 95% CI -10.99 to 28.99; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for hospital length of stay or pneumonia. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDue to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether early enteral nutrition, compared with delayed enteral nutrition, affects the risk of mortality within 30 days, feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications, or pneumonia. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain if early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition compared with delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces mortality, infectious complications, or duration of mechanical ventilation. There is currently insufficient evidence; there is a need for large, multicentred studies with rigorous methodology, which measure important clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Combined Modality TherapyCritical IllnessEnteral NutritionHumansIntensive Care UnitsMalnutritionParenteral NutritionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31684690
PMCPMC6820694
OpenAlexW2982578872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.